The Democrats' Threat: A Bush nominee is confirmed -- but the vote is a message to the White House.

National Review Online ^ | November 20, 2002 | Byron York

[xsysmgr]

The Senate's online voting record shows simply that the nomination of Dennis Shedd to a seat on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals was confirmed last night by a 55 to 44 vote. But there was much more to it than that.

The 44 votes against Shedd, all Democrats, were the most that Democrats have been able to muster against any Bush judicial nominee who came before the full Senate for a confirmation vote. And in that is a message — and a threat — to President Bush.

Before last night's vote, Democrats worked hard to make sure they could come up with at least 41 votes against Shedd. Doing so would tell the White House that Democrats, even when they become the minority party in January, will still be able to derail any of the president's initiatives. Under the Senate's rules, the minority can filibuster any Senate action, and 60 votes are required to cut off debate. The 44 votes against Shedd, and the party discipline they reflected, showed that Democrats are able and ready to tie up the president's legislation in the coming Senate session.

"The message was, We can stop anything you want," says one Republican. "That was a goal of the Democratic leadership."

The vote was also something of a litmus test for Sen. Mary Landrieu. The Louisiana Democrat failed to win 50 percent of the vote in her reelection bid and now faces a runoff against Republican Suzanne Terrell on December 7. Republicans had been watching Landrieu closely. A vote in favor of Shedd would suggest that Landrieu was so concerned about her chances that she would not risk angering centrists in her state by voting against one of the president's nominees. A vote against Shedd would indicate that she was confident of victory and did not want to anger any of the liberal interest groups who support her campaign, particularly those that provide critical get-out-the-vote efforts.

In the end, Landrieu voted against Shedd. "I think her polling shows that she just needs to turn out her base and she'll win," says one Republican.

Shedd was the target of the strongest opposition inside the Senate Judiciary Committee since the coalition of Democrats and liberal interest groups derailed the appeals-court nominations of Charles Pickering and Priscilla Owen. Democrats portrayed Shedd as "insensitive" to the rights of minorities and hostile to the legal arguments of plaintiffs in employment-discrimination cases.

The nomination might have been defeated in the Judiciary Committee had not Delaware Democrat Joseph Biden announced that he would support Shedd. Since a committee vote would have resulted in Shedd's approval, committee chairman Patrick Leahy instead shelved the nomination. It appeared headed for indefinite delay when, on November 5, Republicans won control of the Senate. Last week, knowing that Shedd would soon be confirmed anyway, Leahy pushed the nomination through the committee on a voice vote (every Democrat except Biden opposed Shedd).

A planned filibuster against Shedd in the full Senate came to nothing, so in the end, Democrats used the nomination to send their "we've got 41 votes" message to the White House. While votes like the 90 to 9 approval of the Department of Homeland Security show that the president can exert enormous political pressure on his Democratic opponents, the Shedd vote showed that they can fight back, hard, whenever they see an opportunity.

[Credo]

Bring it on.

[Governor]

Does anyone know how many of those 44 Demorats lost their seats? And how many of them were independents?

[lexington minuteman 1775]

The message should be the President only needs 51 votes on any judicial nominee.And if Dems continue to obstruct it will cost them more in 2004.But if that is thier strategy, well it sure will be intresting

[RicocheT]

The Senate Democrats still think they can pick and choose President Bush's judicial nominees. We have to write our state's US senators and tell them to support or at least not filibuster the nominees. Remind them "advise and consent" means pass qualified nominees and not look for litmus test ideology such as abortion as a standard.

Write especially if your senators are Democrats as they are the ones that need the message. Write if your senators are the closet Democrats such as Snow, Chafee and that other New England female Republican senator whose name I forget.

[Warren]

Very good point!

[dark_lord]

Let them filibuster away. I hope they do. Lots of it. Then the public will view them as "obstructionist" and "disrupting the government" - which is what did in Gingrich and pals. So - if they want to hang themselves, I'm sure there is plenty of rope.

[chiefqc]

That's why they are now known as the "Dumb-O-Insects", like some insects that keep flying into the zapper, they never learn.

It's going to be fun watching the insects destory themselves because they can't learn from their mistakes.

[ijcr]

ROFL! Filibuster away,if Democrats flex their muscles filibustering on every issue, 2004 is gonna kill them.

Lott should shove every Bill and nomination onto the floor in a continuous rolling wave until they cry uncle, and then torch them with a USSC nomination.

[Monti Cello]

Haha! That's a pretty weak message!

What a warning: 'we can't organize a filibuster to stop this now...but in theory we could, maybe, and we might be able to do so in the future'

There is a big difference between holding 41 votes in the Senate cloakroom, and orchestrating a public filibuster to stop the most popular President in history in wartime and recession.

Any filibuster will put extreme political heat on certain Dems, and Bush will only need to peel off a few to get his way.

[Mr. Wright]

You are absolutely correct - the DemocRATS just don't get it!

[Celtjew Libertarian]

Not as bad as all that. Going through the vote summary, it would have been at least 58-42 in the next Senate -- The seats that will be taken over by Barkley, Carnahan, and Cleland, all voted Nay and will be replaced by Republicans, who I assume would vote Yea. Murkowski was absent, as he's preparing to become governor of Alaska; as Republican Gov., he'll appoint his replacement. I'm assuming that Pryor of Ark. would vote Nay, whereas Hutchison voted Yea. So that's 3 switches from Nay to Yea, one from Not Voting to Yea, and 1 from Yea to Nay.

If Terrell pulls the upset it Louisiana, that would be 59-41. If I'm wrong in my assumption about Pryor and he turns out to be of the Zell Miller wing of the Dems (not entirely out of the question), that would make it 60-40.

A working filibuster-proof majority of the GOP and Zell Miller Dems is not out of the question.

[aristeides]

If the Dems start filibustering judicial appointments, will the administration at last start making recess appointments to the bench?

By the way, it's interesting that Biden -- having threatened to vote for Shedd in committee -- voted against Shedd in the vote on the floor last night.

[Brandon]

The message should be the President only needs 51 votes on any judicial nominee.And if Dems continue to obstruct it will cost them more in 2004.But if that is thier strategy, well it sure will be intresting

Yep. The response to this threat is clear: Make them actually conduct filibusters. Make them stand up there in front of the cameras for hours and days on end, talking, talking, talking, preventing the Senate from doing anything. Hold daily cloture votes, and force the Dems to go on record as favoring obstruction. See how long they can keep going, and how often they're willing to try it, under those circumstances.

[Cicero]

I disagree on two points. Landrieu's vote doesn't show that she thinks she has enough votes to win. It only shows that she calculates that the risk of offending her base is greater than the risk of offending independents. So she did what her pro-abort base demanded.

Also, we already knew that the Dems can filibuster on issues they consider critical. But it remains to be seen whether they can prevent Bush and Lott from offering deals to moderate Dems on key votes that would enable them to achieve cloture. I'm thinking of a tax cut bill, for instance. And it remains to be seen how many Senators will be willing to filibuster against a popular president. Byrd did some token filibustering, evidently, but the Dems decided it wasn't worth fighting the Shedd nomination. On the one hand, they need to keep their pro-abort base happy. On the other hand, they need to avoid giving the voters the impression, already pretty widespread, that they are a bunch of angy obstructionists. If they filibuster against all judicial appointments, how well can they expect to do in 2004?

[1Old Pro]

"The message was, We can stop anything you want," says one Republican. "That was a goal of the Democratic leadership."

It has always been the Dems goal, tie up everything because they have NO ideas. I say allow them to filibuster all they want and make sure it's a GOP RANT on every soundbite so the people know the Dems are obstructionists holding up progress and putting the chillren in jeopardy abd at risk.

[goldstategop]

The Democrats certainly have the votes to obstruct. What they don't have is an alternative to offer the country that would make people prepared to listen to what they have to say and to vote for them.

[Sideshow Bob]

Does anyone know how many of those 44 Demorats lost their seats? And how many of them were independents?

Dems voting yea included:
Hollings
Graham (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Inouye
Byrd
Lincoln
Miller

The 44 nays (only 42 Dems, btw) included:
Dems
Landrieu
Breaux
Carnahan
Cleland

Independents
Barkley
Jeffords

Jesse's Folly, Max & the Widder are already out the door. Landrieu will be gone in 2 weeks and Breaux only voted nay as a feeble attempt to give her small political cover.

In addition to Breaux, Miller, Ben Nelson, Bob Graham, Lincoln and newcomer Mark Pryor (all Southern Dems except for Nelson of Nebraska) will not necessarily vote along partisan lines - especially regarding judicial appointments.

Hollings, Byrd and Inouye normally vote along party lines. Who knows which way Jeffords will go on any issue?

Counting a Terrell victory, the GOP will have 53 votes. They only need 7 Dems to break a fillibuster. At least 6 are possible on many issues.

Hollings, Inouye and Akaka are just a stroke away from giving Dubyah a fillibuster proof Senate.

Tread carefully, Mr. Daschle.

[CasearianDaoist]

I think that if Nov. 5 had not gone his way he would have made dozens of appointments this during this recess.